It came to the attention of scholars in the 19th century at the Greek Monastery of Mount Sinai, with further material discovered in the 20th and 21st century. Although parts of the Codex are scattered across four libraries around the world, most of the manuscript today resides within the British Library.[2] Since its discovery, study of the Codex Sinaiticus has proven to be extremely useful to scholars for the purposes of biblical translation.

Description

The codex consists of parchment from both sheepskin and goatskin. The parchment, originally in double sheets, may have measured about 40 by 70 cm. The whole codex consists, with a few exceptions, of quires of eight leaves, a format popular throughout the Middle Ages.[3] Each line of the text has some twelve to fourteen Greek uncial letters, arranged in four columns (48 lines in column) with carefully-chosen line breaks and slightly ragged right edges.[4] When opened, the eight columns thus presented to the reader have much of the appearance of the succession of columns in a papyrus roll.[5] The poetical books of the Old Testament written stichometrically, in only two columns per page. There are no breathings or accents.[6] The codex has almost 4 000 000 uncial letters.[n 1]

The work was written in scriptio continua with neither breathings nor polytonic accents. Occasional points and few ligatures are used, though nomina sacra with overlines are employed throughout. Some words usually abbreviated in other manuscripts (such as πατηρ and δαυειδ), are in this codex both written in full and abbreviated forms. The following nomina sacra are written in abbreviated forms: ΘΣΚΣΙΣΧΣΠΝΑΠΝΙΚΟΣΥΣΑΝΟΣΟΥΟΣΔΑΔΙΛΗΜΙΣΡΛΜΗΡΠΗΡΣΩΡ.[7]

Each rectangular page has the proportions 1.1 to 1, while the block of text has the reciprocal proportions, 0.91 (the same proportions, rotated 90°). If the gutters between the columns were removed, the text block would mirror the page's proportions. Typographer Robert Bringhurst referred to the codex as a "subtle piece of craftsmanship".[9]

The folios are made of vellum parchment made from donkey or antelope skin. Most of the quires or signatures contain four leaves save two containing five. It is estimated that about 360 animals were slaughtered for making the folios of this codex, assuming all animals yielded a good enough skin. As for the cost of the material, time of scribes and binding, it equals the life time wages of one individual at the time.[10]

John 4:9 – ου γαρ συνχρωνται Ιουδαιοι Σαμαριταις (Jews have no dealings with Samaritans), it is one of so-called Western non-interpolations; omission is supported by D, a, b, d, e, j, copfay, it was supplemented by the first corrector (before leaving scriptorium);[24]

In Luke 11:4 αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου (but deliver us from evil) included by the original scribe, marked by the first corrector (a) as doubtful, but the third corrector (c) removed the mark.[27]

Christ's agony at Gethsemane (Luke 22:43-44) — included by the original scribe, marked by the first corrector as doubtful, but a third corrector (c) removed the mark.[28]

Luke 23:34a, "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" — it was included by the first scribe, marked by the first corrector as doubtful, but a third corrector removed the mark.[29]

Interpolations

Matthew 8:13 (see Luke 7:10)

It has additional text: και υποστρεψας ο εκατονταρχος εις τον οικον αυτου εν αυτη τη ωρα ευρεν τον παιδα υγιαινοντα (and when the centurion returned to the house in that hour, he found the slave well) as well as codices C, (N), Θ, (0250), f1, (33, 1241), g1, syrh.[31]

Matthew 27:49 (see John 19:34)

In Matt. 27:49 codex contains added text: ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἒνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὖδορ καὶ αἳμα (the other took a spear and pierced His side, and immediately came out water and blood). This reading was derived from John 19:34 and occurs in other manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type.[32]

Unique textual variants

Matthew 7:22

It has additional word πολλα (numerous) in sentence: "and cast out numerous demons in your name?". It is not supported by any other manuscript.[33]

Matthew 8:12

It has ἐξελεύσονται (will go out) instead of ἐκβληθήσονται (will be thrown). This variant is supported only by one Greek manuscript Uncial 0250, and by Codex Bobiensis, syrc, s, p, pal, arm, Diatessaron.[34]

Matthew 13:54

Ordinary reading εις την πατριδα αυτου changed into εις την αντιπατριδα αυτου, and in Acts 8:5 εις την πολιν της Σαμαρειας replaced into εις την πολιν της Καισαριας. These two variants do not exist in any other manuscript, and it seems they were made by a scribe. According to T. C. Skeat they suggest Caesarea as a place in which the manuscript was made.[35]

"Nazareth" is called "a city of Judea", in John 2:3, where is ordinary reading "And when they wanted wine", or "And when wine failed", Codex Sinaiticus has "And they had no wine, because the wine of the marriage feast was finished" (supported by a and j);

Text-type and relationship to other manuscripts

For most of the New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus is in general agreement with Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, attesting the Alexandrian text-type. A notable example of an agreement between the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts is that they both omit the word εικη ('without cause', 'without reason', 'in vain') from Matthew 5:22 "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement".[n 4]

In John 1:1-8:38 Codex Sinaiticus differs from Vaticanus and all other Alexandrian manuscripts. It is in closer agreement with Codex Bezae in support of the Western text-type. For example, in John 1:3 Sinaiticus and Codex Bezae are the only Greek manuscripts with textual variant ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἐστίν (in him is life) instead of ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ᾓν (in him was life). This variant is supported by Vetus Latina and some Sahidic manuscripts. This portion has a large number of corrections.[45] There is a number of differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; Hoskier enumerated 3036 differences:

A large number of these differences are due to iotacisms and variants in transcribing Hebrew names. These two manuscripts were not written in the same scriptorium. According to HortSinaiticus and Vaticanus were derived from a common original much older, "the date of which cannot be later than the early part of the second century, and may well be yet earlier".[47]

Example of differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in Matt 1:18-19:

Between the 4th and 12th centuries, seven or more correctors worked on this codex, making it one of the most corrected manuscripts in existence.[49] Tischendorf during his investigation in Petersburg enumerated 14 800 corrections only in the portion which was held in Petersburg (2/3 of the codex).[50] This implies that the full codex could have about 20 000 corrections. In addition to these corrections some letters were marked by dots as doubtful (e.g. ṪḢ). Corrections represent the Byzantine text-type, just like corrections in codices: Bodmer II, Regius (L), Ephraemi (C), and Sangallensis (Δ). They were discovered by Button.[51]

History of the codex

Early history of codex

Provenance

Little is known of the manuscript's early history. According to Hort, it was written in the West, probably in Rome, as suggested by the fact that the chapter division in the Acts common to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus occurs in no other Greek manuscript, but is found in several manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate.[52]Robinson easily disproved this argument, suggesting that this system of chapters divisions was introduced into the Vulgate by Jerome himself, as a result of his studies at Caesarea.[53]Kenyon, Gardthausen, Ropes and Jellicoe thought it was written in Egypt. Harris, Streeter,[48] Skeat, and Milne tended to think that it was produced in Caesarea.[35]

Date of the codex

It was written in the fourth century. It could not have been written before 325 CE because it contains the Eusebian Canons, which is a terminus post quem. It could not have been written after 360 CE because of certain references to Church fathers in the margin. This means that 360 CE is a terminus ad quem.[10]

Frederic G. Kenyon argued: "There is not the least sign of either of them ever having been at Constantinople. The fact that Sinaiticus was collated with the manuscript of Pamphilus so late as the sixth century seems to show that it was not originally written at Caesarea".[56]

Scribes and correctors

Tischendorf also believed that four separate scribes copied the work (whom he named A, B, C and D) and that five correctors (whom he designated a, b, c, d and e) amended portions. He posited that one of the correctors was contemporaneous with the original scribes, and that the others dated to the sixth and seventh centuries. It is now agreed, after Milne and Skeat's reinvestigation, that Tischendorf was wrong—scribe C never existed.[57] According to Tischendorf, scribe C wrote poetic books of the Old Testament. These are written in a different format from the rest of the manuscript — they are in two columns (the rest of books is in four columns) and written stichometrically. Tischendorf probably interpreted the different formatting as indicating the existence of another scribe.[58] The three remaining scribes are still identified by the letters that Tischendorf gave them: A, B, and D.[58] Correctors were more, at least seven (a, b, c, ca, cb, cc, e).[2]

Modern analysis identifies at least three scribes. Scribe A wrote most of the historical and poetical books of the Old Testament, almost the whole of the New Testament, and Epistle of Barnabas. Scribe B was responsible for the Prophets and the Shepherd of Hermas. Scribe D wrote the whole of Tobit and Judith, the first half of 4 Maccabees, and first 2/3 of the Psalms, and first five verses of Revelation. Scribe B was a poor speller, and scribe A was not very much better; the best scribe was D.[59] Metzger states: "scribe A had made some unusually serious mistakes".[50] Scribes A and B more often used nomina sacra in contracted forms (ΠΝΕΥΜΑ contracted in all occurrences, ΚΥΡΙΟΣ contracted except 2 occurrences), scribe D more often used forms uncontracted.[60] D distinguished between sacral and nonsacral using of ΚΥΡΙΟΣ.[61] His errors are the substitution of ΕΙ for Ι, and Ι for ΕΙ in medial positions, both equally common. Otherwise substitution of Ι for initial ΕΙ is unknown, and final ΕΙ is only replaced in word ΙΣΧΥΕΙ, confusing of Ε and ΑΙ is very rare.[59] In the Book of Psalms this scribe has 35 times ΔΑΥΕΙΔ instead of ΔΑΥΙΔ, while scribe A normally uses an abbreviated form ΔΑΔ.[62] Scribe A was "worse type of phonetic error". Confusion of Ε and ΑΙ occurs in all contexts.[59] Scribe B was characterised by Milne and Skeat as "careless and illiterate".[63] The work of the original scribe is designated by the siglumא*.[2]

In the 6th or 7th century the codex may have been housed at Caesarea

A paleographical study at the British Museum in 1938 found that the text had undergone several corrections. The first corrections were done by several scribes before the manuscript left the scriptorium.[50] Readings which they introduced are designated by the siglum אa.[64] Mile and Skeat have observed that the superscription to 1 Maccabees was made by scribe D, while the text was written by scribe A.[65] Scribe D corrects his own work and that of scribe A, but scribe A limits to correcting his own work.[66] In the sixth or seventh century, many alterations were made (אb), which, according to a colophon at the end of the book of Esdras and Esther states, that the source of these alterations was "a very ancient manuscript that had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphylus" (martyred 309 CE). If this is so, material beginning with 1 Samuel to the end of Esther is Origen's copy of the Hexapla. From this colophon, the correction is concluded to have been made in Caesarea Maritima in the 6th or 7th centuries.[67] The pervasive iotacism, especially of the ει diphthong, remains uncorrected.

"Bibbia in membrane bellissime... scritta in carattere rotondo e belissimo" ("a Bible on beautiful vellum, very large, thin and square, written in beautiful round letters)" is probably the Codex Sinaiticus.

Tischendorf in 1870

In 1844, during his first visit to Monastery of Saint Catherine, Leipzig archaeologist Constantin von Tischendorf claimed that he saw some leaves of parchment in a waste-basket. He said they were "rubbish which was to be destroyed by burning it in the ovens of the monastery",[69] although this is firmly denied by the Monastery. After examination he realized that they were part of the Septuagint, written in an early Greek uncial script. He retrieved from the basket 129 leaves in Greek which he identified as coming from a manuscript of the Septuagint. He asked if he might keep them, but at this point the attitude of the monks changed, they realized how valuable these old leaves were, and Tischendorf was permitted to take only one-third of the whole, i.e. 43 leaves. These leaves contained portions of 1 Chronicles, Jeremiah, Nehemiah, and Esther. After his return they were deposited in the Leipzig University Library, where they still remain. In 1846 Tischendorf published their contents, naming them the 'Codex Friderico-Augustanus' (in honor of Frederick Augustus). In the monastery left other portions of the same codex, containing all of Isaiah and 1 and 4 Maccabees.[70]

In 1845 ArchimandritePorfirij Uspenskij (1804–1885), at that time head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem and subsequently Bishop of Chigirin, visited the monastery and the codex was shown to him, together with leaves which Tischendorf had not seen.[n 5] In 1846 captain C. K. MacDonald visited Mount Sinai, saw the codex, and bought two codices 495 and 496 from the monastery.[71]

In 1853 Tischendorf revisited the Monastery of Saint Catherine to get the remaining 86 folios, but without success. Returning in 1859, this time under the patronage of Tsar Alexander II of Russia, he was shown the Codex Sinaiticus. He would later claim to have found it discarded in a rubbish bin. (However, this story may have been a fabrication, or the manuscripts in question may have been unrelated to Codex Sinaiticus: Rev. J. Silvester Davies in 1863 quoted "a monk of Sinai who... stated that according to the librarian of the monastery the whole of Codex Sinaiticus had been in the library for many years and was marked in the ancient catalogues... Is it likely... that a manuscript known in the library catalogue would have been jettisoned in the rubbish basket." Indeed, it has been noted that the leaves were in "suspiciously good condition" for something found in the trash.[n 6]) Tischendorf had been sent to search for manuscripts by Russia's TsarAlexander II, who was convinced there were still manuscripts to be found at the Sinai monastery. The text of this part of the codex was published by Tischendorf in 1862:

The complete publication of the codex was made by Kirsopp Lake in 1911 (New Testament),[72] and in 1922 (Old Testament). It was the full-sized black and white facsimile of the manuscript, made by editing two earlier facsimiles. Lake did not have access to the manuscript.

The story of how von Tischendorf found the manuscript, which contained most of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament, has all the interest of a romance. Von Tischendorf reached the monastery on 31 January; but his inquiries appeared to be fruitless. On 4 February, he had resolved to return home without having gained his object:

On the afternoon of this day I was taking a walk with the steward of the convent in the neighbourhood, and as we returned, towards sunset, he begged me to take some refreshment with him in his cell. Scarcely had he entered the room, when, resuming our former subject of conversation, he said: "And I, too, have read a Septuagint"—i.e. a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy. And so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Shepherd of Hermas.[73]

The Monastery of St. Catherine; lithograph from the album of P. Uspensky

After some negotiations, he obtained possession of this precious fragment. James Bentley gives an account of how this came about, prefacing it with the comment, "Tischendorf therefore now embarked on the remarkable piece of duplicity which was to occupy him for the next decade, which involved the careful suppression of facts and the systematic denigration of the monks of Mount Sinai."[74] He conveyed it to Tsar Alexander II, who appreciated its importance and had it published as nearly as possible in facsimile, so as to exhibit correctly the ancient handwriting. In 1869 the Tsar sent the monastery 7 000 rubles and the monastery of Mount Tabor 2 000 rubles by way of compensation.[75] The document in Russian formalising this has been published in 2007 in Russia and has since been translated.[76]

Regarding Tischendorf's role in the transfer to Saint Petersburg, there are several views. Although when parts of Genesis and Book of Numbers were later found in the bindings of other books, they were amicably sent to Tischendorf, the codex is currently regarded by the monastery as having been stolen. This view is hotly contested by several scholars in Europe. Kirsopp Lake wrote:

Those who have had much to do with Oriental monks will understand how improbable it is that the terms of the arrangement, whatever it was, were ever known to any except of the leaders.[77]

Certain aspects of the negotiations leading to the transfer of the codex to the Tsar's possession are open to an interpretation that reflects adversely on Tischendorf's candour and good faith with the monks at St. Catherine's. For a recent account intended to exculpate him of blame, see Erhard Lauch's article 'Nichts gegen Tischendorf' in Bekenntnis zur Kirche: Festgabe für Ernst Sommerlath zum 70. Geburtstag (Berlin, c. 1961); for an account that includes a hitherto unknown receipt given by Tischendorf to the authorities at the monastery promising to return the manuscript from Saint Petersburg 'to the Holy Confraternity of Sinai at its earliest request'.[78][79]

View of the Monastery of St. Catherine

In 13 September 1862 Constantine Simonides, a forger of manuscripts who had been exposed by Tischendorf, by way of revenge made the claim in print in The Guardian that he had written the codex himself as a young man in 1839 in the Panteleimonos monastery at Athos.[80][81]Henry Bradshaw, a scholar, contributed to exposing the frauds of Constantine Simonides, and exposed the absurdity of his claims in a letter to the Guardian (January 26, 1863). Bradshaw showed that the Codex Sinaiticus brought by Tischendorf from the Greek monastery of Mount Sinai was not a modern forgery or written by Simonides. Simonides' "claim was flawed from the beginning".[82]

Not every scholar and Church minister was delighted about the codex. Burgon, a supporter of the Textus Receptus, suggested that Codex Sinaiticus, as well as codices Vaticanus and Codex Bezae, were the most corrupt documents extant. Each of these three codices "clearly exhibits a fabricated text - is the result of arbitrary and reckless recension."[83] The two most weighty of these three codices, א and B, he likens to the "two false witnesses" of Matthew 26:60.[84]

Later story of codex

In the early 20th century Vladimir N. Beneshevich (1874–1938) subsequently discovered parts of three more leaves of the codex in the bindings of other manuscripts in the library of Mount Sinai. Beneshevich went on three occasions to the monastery (1907, 1908, 1911) but does not tell when or from which book he recovered. These leaves were also acquired for St. Petersburg, where they remain to the present day.[85][86]

2/3 part of the codex was held in the National Library of Russia from 1859 until 1933

In May 1975, during restoration work, the monks of St. Catherine's monastery discovered a room beneath the St. George Chapel which contained many parchment fragments. Among these fragments were twelve complete leaves from the Sinaiticus, 11 leaves of the Pentateuch and 1 leaf of the Shepherd of Hermas.[12] Together with these leaves 67 Greek Manuscripts of New Testament have been found (uncials 0278 – 0296 and some minuscules).[88]

In June 2005, a team of experts from the UK, Europe, Egypt, Russia and USA undertook a joint project to produce a new digital edition of the manuscript (involving all four holding libraries), and a series of other studies was announced.[89] This will include the use of hyperspectral imaging to photograph the manuscripts to look for hidden information such as erased or faded text.[90] This is to be done in cooperation with the British Library.[91]

More than 1/4 of the manuscript was made publicly available at The Codex Sinaiticus Website on July 24, 2008. On July 6, 2009, 800 more pages of the manuscript were made available, showing over half of the entire text,[92] although the entire text was intended to be shown by that date.[93]

The complete document is now available online in digital form and available for scholarly study. The online version has a fully transcribed set of digital pages, including amendments to the text, and two images of each page, with both standard lighting and raked lighting to highlight the texture of the parchment.[94]

Prior to September 1, 2009, the University of the Arts London PhD student, Nikolas Sarris, discovered the previously unseen fragment of the Codex in the library of St. Catherine's Monastery in Egypt. It contains text of Book of Joshua 1:10.[95][96]

St. Catherine's monastery still maintains the importance of a letter, typewritten in 1844 with an original signature of Tischendorf confirming that he borrowed those leaves.[97] However, recently published documents, including a deed of gift dated 11 September 1868 and signed by Archbishop Kallistratos and the monks of the monastery, prove that the manuscript was acquired entirely legitimately.[98] This deed, which agrees with a report by Kurt Aland on the matter, has now been published. Unfortunately this development is not widely known in the English-speaking world, as only German- and Russian-language media reported on it in 2009. Doubts as to the legality of the gift arose because when Tischendorf originally removed the manuscript from St Catherine's in September 1859, the monastery was without an archbishop, so that even though the intention to present the manuscript to the Tsar had been expressed, no legal gift could be made at the time. Resolution of the matter was delayed through the turbulent reign of Archbishop Cyril (consecrated 7 December 1859, deposed 24 August 1866), and the situation only formalised after the restoration of peace.[98]

Skeat in his article "The Last Chapter in the History of the Codex Sinaiticus" concluded in this way:

This is not the place to pass judgements, but perhaps I may say that, as it seems to me, both the monks and Tischendorf deserve our deepest gratitude, Tischendorf for having alerted the monks to the importance of the manuscript, and the monks for having undertaken the daunting task of searching through the vast mass of material with such spectacular results, and them doing everything in their power to safeguard the manuscript against further loss. If we accept the statement of Uspensky, that he saw the codex in 1845, the monks must have worked very hard to complete their search and bind up the results in so short a period.[99]

Impact on biblical scholarship

Along with Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus has proven to be one of the most valuable manuscripts for establishing the original text (textual criticism) of the Greek New Testament, as well as the Septuagint. It is the only uncial manuscript with the complete text of the New Testament, and the only ancient manuscript of the New Testament written in four columns per page which has survived to the present day.[2] With only 300 years separating the Codex Sinaiticus and the original manuscripts of the New Testament, it is considered to be very highly accurate, as opposed to most later copies, in preserving obviously superior readings where many later manuscripts are in error.[5]

For the Gospels, Sinaiticus is generally considered among scholars as the second most reliable witness of the text (after Vaticanus); in the Acts of the Apostles, its text is equal to that of Vaticanus; in the Epistles, Sinaiticus is the most reliable witness of the text. In the Book of Revelation, however, its text is corrupted and is considered of poor quality, and inferior to the texts of Codex Alexandrinus, Papyrus 47, and even some minuscule manuscripts in this place (for example, Minuscule 2053, 2062).[10]

^ Davies words are from a letter published in The Guardian on 27 May 1863, as quoted by Elliott, J.K. (1982) in Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair, Thessaloniki: Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, p. 16; Elliott in turn is quoted by Michael D. Peterson in his essay "Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus: the Saga Continues", in The Church and the Library, ed. Papademetriou and Sopko Boston: Somerset Hall Press (2005), p. 77. See also notes 2 and 3, p. 90, in Papademetriou.

References

^Metzger, Bruce; Bart D. Ehrman (2005). The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. New York - Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-19-516122-9.

^ abcdefAland, Kurt; Barbara Aland; Erroll F. Rhodes (transl.) (1995). The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 107-108. ISBN 978-0-8028-4098-1.

Tischendorf, Constantin von (1866). When Were Our Gospels Written?, An Argument by Constantine Tischendorf. With a Narrative of the Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript. New York: American Tract Society.

From BibleWiki

Usually designated by the first letter of the Hebrew
alphabet, א, this is one of the most valuable of ancient MSS.
of the GreekNew Testament. On
the occasion of a third visit to the convent of St. Catherine, on
Mount Sinai, in 1859, it was discovered by
Dr. Tischendorf. He had on a previous visit in 1844 obtained
forty-three parchment
leaves of the LXX., which he deposited in the university library
of Leipsic, under the title of the Codex Frederico-Augustanus,
after his royal patron the king of Saxony. In the year referred to
(1859) the emperor of Russia sent him to prosecute his search for
MSS., which he was convinced were still to be found in the Sinai convent.

The story of his finding the manuscript of the New Testament has
all the interest of a romance. He reached the convent on 31st
January; but his inquiries appeared to be fruitless. On the 4th
February he had resolved to return home without having gained his
object. "On that day, when walking with the provisor of the
convent, he spoke with much regret of his ill-success. Returning
from their promenade, Tischendorf accompanied the monk to his room,
and there had displayed to him what his companion called a copy of
the LXX.,
which he, the ghostly brother, owned. The MS. was wrapped up in a
piece of cloth, and on its being unrolled, to the surprise and
delight of the critic the very document presented itself which he
had given up all hope of seeing. His object had been to complete
the fragmentary LXX. of 1844, which he had declared to be the most
ancient of all Greek codices on
vellum that are extant; but he found not only that, but a copy of
the GreekNew Testament
attached, of the same age, and perfectly complete, not wanting a
single page or paragraph." This precious fragment, after some
negotiations, he obtained possession of, and conveyed it to the
Emperor Alexander, who
fully appreciated its importance, and caused it to be published as
nearly as possible in facsimile, so as to exhibit correctly the
ancient handwriting.

what
mentions this? (please help by turning references to this page into
wiki links)

(The symbol is the Hebrew character Aleph, though Swete
and a few other scholars use the letter S.)

A Greek manuscript of the Old
and New Testaments, of the greatest antiquity and value; found on
Mount Sinai, in St. Catherine's Monastery,
by Constantine Tischendorf. He was visiting
there in 1844, under the patronage of Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony, when he discovered
in a rubbish basket
forty-three leaves of the Septuagint, containing portions of I Par.
(Chron.), Jer., Neh., and Esther; he was permitted to take them. He also
saw the books of Isaias and I and IV Machabees,
belonging to the same codex as the fragments, but could not obtain
possession of them; warning the monks of their value, he left for
Europe and two years later
published the leaves he had brought with him under the name of
Codex Friderico-Augustanus, after his patron. They are preserved at
Leipzig. On a second visit, in 1853, he found only two short
fragments of Genesis (which he printed on his return) and could
learn nothing of the rest of the codex. In 1859 he made a third
visit, this time under the patronage of the Czar, Alexander II. This visit
seemed likewise fruitless when, on the eve of his departure, in a
chance conversation with the steward, he learned of the existence
of a manuscript there; when it was shown to him, he saw the very
manuscript he had sought containing, beyond all his dreams, a
great part of the Old Testament and the entire New Testament,
besides the Epistle of Barnabas, and part of
theShepherd of Hermas, of which two
works no copies in the original Greek were known to exist. Thinking it "a crime to sleep", Tischendorf spent
the night copying Barnabas; he had to leave in the morning,
after failing to persuade the monks to let him have the manuscript.
At Cairo he stopped at a monastery belonging to the same monks
(they were of the Orthodox GreekChurch) and succeeded in
having the manuscript sent to him there for transcription; and
finally, in obtaining it from the monks as a present to the Czar,
Tischendorf's patron and the protector of their Church. Years later, in 1869, the Czar rewarded
the two monasteries with gifts of money (7000 and 2000 roubles each) and
decorations. The manuscript is treasured in the Imperial Library at
St. Petersburg. Tischendorf published an account of it in 1860;
and, under the auspices of the czar, printed it in facsimile in
1862. Twenty-one lithographic plates made from photographs were
included in this edition, which was issued in four volumes. The
following year he published a critical edition of the New Testament.
Finally, in 1867, he published additional fragments of Genesis and
Numbers, which had been used to bind other volumes at St.
Catherine's and had been discovered by the Archimandrite Porfirius.
On four different occasions, then, portions of the original
manuscript have been discovered; they have never been published
together in a single edition.

The Codex Sinaiticus, which originally must have contained the
whole Old
Testament, has suffered severely from mutilation, especially in
the historical books from Genesis to Esdras (inclusive); the rest
of the Old
Testament fared much better. The fragments and books extant
are: several verses from Gen., xxiii and xxiv, and from Num., v,
vi, vii; I Par., ix, 27-xix, 17; Esdras, ix,9 to end; Nehemias,
Esther, Tobias, Judith, Joel,
Abdias, Jonas, Nahum,
Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias, Isaias, Jeremias,
Lamentations, i, 1-ii, 20; I
Machabees, IV Machabees (apocryphal, while the
canonical II Machabees and the apocryphal III
Machabees were never contained in this codex). A curious
occurrence is that Esdras, ix, 9 follows I Par., xix, 17 without
any break; the note of a corrector shows that seven leaves of I
Par. were copied into the Book of Esdras, probably by a
mistake in the binding of the manuscript from which Codex
Sinaiticus was copied. Our Esdras is called in this codex, as in many
others, Esdras B. This may indicate that it followed Esdras A, as
the book called by JeromeIII
Esdras (see ESDRAS) is named in ancient codices; the proof
is by no means sure, however, as IV Machabees is here
designated Machabees D, as was usual, although the second and third
books of Machabees were absent from the manuscript. The New Testament is
complete, likewise the Epistle of Barnabas; six leaves
following Barnabas are
lost, which probably also contained uncanonical literature: the "Shepherd" of Hermas is incomplete, and we
cannot tell whether other works followed. In all, there are 346 1/2
leaves. The order of the New Testament is to be noted, St. Paul's Epistles preceding Acts; Hebrews following II Thess. The manuscript is
on good parchment; the
pages measure about 15 inches by 13 1/2 inches; there are four columns to
a page, except in the poetical books, which are written
stichometrically in two columns of greater width; there are 48 lines to
a column, but 47 in the
Catholic Epistles. The
four narrow columns give the page the appearance of an
ancient roll; it is not impossible, as Kenyon says, that it was in
fact copied from a papyrus roll. It is written in uncial
characters, well formed, without accents or breathings, and with no
punctuation except (at times) the apostrophe and the single point
for a period. Tischendorf judged that there were four hands engaged
in the writing of the manuscript; in this he has been generally
followed. He has been less happy in obtaining acceptance of his
conjecture that one of these scribes also wrote the New Testament of the Vatican Codex.
He recognized seven correctors of the text, one of them
contemporaneous with the writing of the manuscript. The Ammonian
Sections and the Eusebian Canons are indicated in the margin,
probably by a contemporary hand; they seem to have been unknown to
the scribe, however, who followed another division.
The clerical errors are relatively not numerous, in Gregory's judgment.

In age this manuscript ranks alongside the Codex
Vaticanus. Its antiquity is shown by the writing, by the four
columns
to a page (an indication, probably, of the transition from the roll
to the codex form of manuscript.), by the absence of the large
initial letters and of ornaments, by the rarity of punctuation, by
the short titles of the books, the presence of divisions of the
text antedating Eusebius,
the addition of Barnabas
and Hermas, etc. Such
indications have induced experts to place it in the fourth century,
along with Codex
Vaticanus and some time before Codex
Alexandrinus and Codex Ephræmi Rescriptus; this conclusion is
not seriously questioned, though the possibility of an early
fifth-century date is conceded. Its origin has been assigned to Rome, Southern Italy, Egypt,
and Caesarea, but cannot
be determined (Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament,
London, 1901, p. 56 sqq.). It seems to have been at one time at Caesarea; one of the
correctors (probably of seventh century) adds this note at the end
of Esdras:
"This codex was compared with a very ancient exemplar which had
been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus [d. 309]; which exemplar
contained at the end of the subscription in his own hand: `Taken
and corrected according to the Hexapla of Origen: Antonius compared it: I, Pamphilus,
corrected it'." Pamphilus was, with Eusebius,
the founder of the library at Caesarea. Some are even inclined to regard
Codex Sinaiticus as one of the fifty manuscripts which Constantine bade Eusebius of
Caesarea to have prepared in 331 for the churches of Constantinople;
but there is no sign of its having been at Constantinople.
Nothing is known of its later history till its discovery by
Tischendorf. The text of Codex Sinaiticus bears a very close
resemblance to that of Codex
Vaticanus, though it cannot be descended from the same
immediate ancestor. In general, Codex Vaticanus is placed first in
point of purity by contemporary scholars and Codex Sinaiticus next.
This is especially true, for the New Testament, of the Gospels. The differences are more frequent in
the Old
Testament where the codices Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus often
agree.